By: Jerry Bogacz, PhD Candidate and Retired Biologist | February 12, 2023
This is part III of a three-part series looking at worldview and science. In Part I, I presented the worldview of metaphysical naturalism. Its epistemological handmaidens are the outputs of science. In part II, I engaged the question what is science? Please revisit those two essays. In part III, I now discuss the epistemology of scientism.
What is Scientism?
The term scientism was first used and popularized by economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek in 1942, who defined it as the “slavish imitation of the method and language of Science.”[1] His contemporary philosopher Karl Popper stated scientism is the “aping of what is widely mistaken for the method of science.”[2] The late cosmologist and physicist Carl Sagan was a science popularizer in the 1970s through the 1980s. He is best known for his television series and book Cosmos. In one short yet powerful thirteen-word sentence, Sagan captured the foundation of naturalism and the essence of scientism, stating, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[3] Sagan makes a knowledge claim. But this claim is not sourced from the findings of science. It is not a scientific statement but a philosophical statement about science. By what scientific means does Sagan know what the cosmos was, is, or ever will be?
In everyday terms, we have all seen or heard comments like this: “I am a science and evidence person. Truth can only be empirically determined, and science is the only way to know truth.” Note here that this is both an exclusive and value claim about knowledge. Science is the only means to gain knowledge and assess truth. These are examples of scientistic (scientism) and not a scientific point of view. They present a rigid bias that is grounded in an over-reliance on science with a dogmatic endorsement of scientific method(s) and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is empirically confirmatory.
Two Forms of Scientism
Scientism is a philosophical, epistemological thesis that comes in two forms. Strong scientism: the only knowledge we can have about reality is that which has been properly tested in the hard sciences (especially physics and chemistry). Hence other knowledge claims (theological, ethical, political, aesthetic, historical) are reduced to emotive expression and private opinion. Weak scientism: allows for the possibility of justified beliefs outside science, but the “settled” assertions of the hard sciences are vastly superior to claims outside science. Still, advocates of weak scientism elevate the findings of the natural sciences. Usually, they affirm that findings outside of science obtain positive rationality status only to the extent that they conform to or are complemented by scientific knowledge. Both forms are problematic and distortions of science. Nicholas Rescher notes,
The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all—that what is not in science textbooks is not worth knowing—is an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of the cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive worldview. This is the doctrine not of science but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate science but to distort it.[4]
The statement “only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically evaluated is rational and true” is self-refuting. It is not a statement of science. It is a philosophical statement about science. How could the statement itself be quantified and empirically tested? Hence if it cannot be tested, then by the statement’s own standards, it cannot itself be true or rationally held. Scientism is arbitrary, self-refuting and therefore incoherent. It arbitrarily demands that all truth-claims must be scientifically (empirically) verifiable. It is self-refuting because there is no way to verify scientifically that all truth-claims must be scientifically verifiable. Another way of stating this is to say that the goals, methodologies, and presuppositions of science cannot be validated by science. Science cannot be justified by science any more than one can pull oneself up by his own bootstraps. The validation of science is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, and any claim to the contrary will be a self-refuting philosophical claim.
Weak scientism is unconvincing. It seems to be an exercise in bare arithmetic or “more is better” leading to best. How are the descriptions of better or best to be defined and arbitrated? Is knowledge attainment like a sporting event–science provides three features of good explanation and history only two; therefore, science wins? This ignores the contexts in which scholars across different disciplines work to reach their conclusions. Weak scientism assumes a false conception of the relationship between philosophy and science. Both forms do not adequately allow for the task of stating and defending the necessary presuppositions for science itself to be practiced (assuming scientific realism). Thus, scientism in both its strong and weak forms shows itself to be a foe and not a friend of science.
Is There Knowable Knowledge Outside of Science?
Is there knowledge outside of science that can, in fact, be known to various degrees of certainty? A resounding yes, there is! Two examples of a priori knowledge are mathematical knowledge and the rules of logic and logical propositions. These two brute givens cannot themselves be tested or verified by science itself without begging the question. Several other presuppositions are in play before the methods of science can even be employed. First, the external world is theory-independent, orderly, and knowable. Second, the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as sources of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment. Third, existence of values used in science (testing theories and report results honestly. Fourth, the uniformity of nature and induction.[5]
Scientists and experts in various professional disciplines often feel free, or even obligated, to cloak themselves in the authority of their area of expertise and make grandiose statements such as this by a professor of biological sciences. William Provine of Cornell University states,
Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear…There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[6]
The late philosopher Dallas Willard responds,
Logically viewed, this statement is simply laughable. Nowhere within the published, peer-reviewed literature of biology—even evolutionary biology—do any of the statements of which the professor is “absolutely certain” appear as valid conclusions of sound research. One trembles to think that an expert in the field would not know this or else would feel free to disregard it. Biology as a field of research and knowledge is not even about such issues. It simply does not deal with them. They do not fall within the province of its responsibilities.[7]
Conclusion
Scientism is the mistaken attempt to exalt science into a complete philosophy. It will not work, and scientists have always been among the first to recognize that. Peter Medawar, Brazilian-British biologist, who made important contributions on graft rejection and acquired immune tolerance that are critical to the medical practice of tissue and organ transplants, gives this advice to young scientists,
There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon himself and upon his profession than roundly to declare, particularly when no declaration of any kind is called for, that science knows or soon will know the answers to all questions worth asking, and that questions which do not admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or “pseudo questions” that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able to answer.[8]
One person a few years ago commented to me that scientism is like the fisherman who claims nothing else exists that is not caught by his net. Scientism asserts that nothing exists that we can have knowledge of that is not captured by the net of science and its methods.
About the Author
Jerry Bogacz was born and raised in the Chicago area. Jerry and his wife Kathy relocated to Lexington, Virginia in 2015 where they reside to this day. As a scientist, Jerry worked as a research scientist and project manager in immunodiagnostic and DNA diagnostic product development for Abbott Laboratories in northern Chicago. Jerry is a PhD Candidate in the PhD in Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He graduated from Biola University with two degrees–an MA in in Apologetics and an MA in Science/Religion. He was a resident in 2013 at the C. S. Lewis Fellowship at the Discovery Institute. Also, Jerry received training at the CrossExamined Apologetics training in 2014. Ministerially, he served as a pastoral and teaching elder at Evanston Bible Fellowship in Evanston, IL (2001-2015). Jerry’s primary areas of research are focused around the integration of science and theology, biblical anthropology, bioethics, and worldview studies.
Notes
[1] F.A Hayek, “Scientism and the Study of Society. Part I”. Economica. 9 (35): 267–291.
[2] Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 185.
[3] Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), 4.
[4] Nicholas Rescher, The Limits of Science (Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1999), 247.
[5] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 348.
[6] W.B Provine, Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? The Debate at Stanford University, William B. Provine (Cornell University) and Phillip E. Johnson (University of California, Berkeley), videorecording © 1994 Regents of the University of California.
[7] Dallas Willard, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 5.
[8] P. B. Medawar, Advice To A Young Scientist (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 31.
Other Articles by Jerry Bogacz:
https://bellatorchristi.com/2022/12/01/what-is-science/
Copyright, 2023. BellatorChristi.com.
